Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Abstract
1
Associate Professor, Johns Hopkins University, United States,
schafer@jhu.edu
2
Associate Professor, Budapest University of Technology and Economics,
Hungary, sadany@epito.bme.hu
Introduction
Cold-formed steel members are thin, light, and efficient. However, this
efficiency comes with complication: engineers must consider buckling of the
thin walls of the cross-section in addition to global (e.g., flexural or lateral-
torsional) buckling of the member. Classical hand solutions to these instabilities
become unduly cumbersome for more complex buckling modes, such as
distortional buckling; and may ignore critical mechanical features, such as inter-
element equilibrium and compatibility. To remedy this, the engineer may turn to
numerical solutions such as the finite strip method (FSM).
In the finite strip method (FSM) a thin-walled member, such as the lipped
channel of Figure 1, is discretized into longitudinal strips. The advantage of
FSM over other methods, such as the finite element method which applies
discretization in both the longitudinal and transverse direction, is dependent on a
judicious choice of the shape function for the longitudinal displacement field. In
Figure 1 a single strip is highlighted, along with the degrees of freedom (DOF)
for the strip, the dimensions of the strip, and applied edge tractions (loads).
b
v1
v2
θ1 θ2
a y
u1 u2
w1 w2
x
v1 z
v2
T1=f1t T2=f2t
Figure 1 Finite strip discretization, strip DOF, dimensions, and applied edge tractions
γ
xy m ∂u ∂y + ∂v ∂x
εx − z ∂ 2 w ∂x 2
εb = ε y = − z∂ 2 w ∂y 2 = N 'w' d wθ = B b d wθ
γ
xy b 2z∂ w ∂x∂y
2
Consider the member to be loaded with linearly varying edge tractions (T1, T2)
as shown in Figure 1. The geometric stiffness matrix may be determined by
considering the additional potential energy incurred as these edge tractions
displace longitudinally (in the y direction); or equivalently in terms of higher-
order strain definitions (i.e., the Green-Lagrange strain):
x 1 ∂u ∂v ∂w
2 2 2
a b
W = ∫ ∫ T1 − (T1 − T2 ) + + dxdy
0 0 b 2 ∂y ∂y ∂y
The derivatives of the displacement fields may be written in terms of derivatives
of the shape functions, N, and nodal displacements, d, similar to the elastic
stiffness solution. For example, for bending, w:
2
∂w T T
= d wθ T N 'w N 'w d wθ = d wθ T G b G b d wθ
∂y
Introducing this notation into the earlier potential energy statement leads to a
formal definition of the geometric stiffness matrix, kg.
1 T a b x 1
W= d ∫ ∫ T1 − (T1 − T2 ) G T Gdxdyd = d T k g d
2 0 0 b 2
Similar to the elastic stiffness matrix, kg may be broken into two parts. One
related to the u and v displacement fields, or membrane deformations, kgm, and
one related to w, or bending, kgb:
ab
x T
k gm = ∫ ∫ T1 − (T1 − T2 ) G m G m dxdy
0 0 b
ab
x T
k gb = ∫ ∫ T1 − (T1 − T2 ) G b G b dxdy
0 0 b
Substitution and subsequent integration lead to the following closed-form
expressions for the geometric stiffness matrices:
70(3T1 + T2 ) 0 70(T1 + T2 ) 0
70(3T1 + T2 ) 0 70(T1 + T2 )
k gm = C
70(T1 + 3T2 ) 0
symmetric 70(T1 + 3T2 )
To form the global elastic (Ke) and geometric stiffness (Kg) matrices each
individual strip must be transformed from local to global coordinates and then
assembled. A note on notation, local DOF are denoted by lowercase u, v, w, θ
and global DOF by uppercase U, V, W, Θ; further, stiffness matrices in the strip
local coordinate system are a lowercase k, and in the global system an uppercase
K is used. The local to global transformation at node “i” for strip “j” which is
oriented in the left-handed coordinate system of Figure 1 at an angle α(j) is
governed by the following transformations:
u i cos α ( j) sin α ( j) U i v i 1 0 Vi
w = ( j) and θ =
i − sin α cos α i i 0 1 Θ i
( j)
W
These may be collected into a matrix form for all DOF in strip j as
d ( j ) = Γ ( j) D ( j )
Transformation of the stiffness matrices of strip j follows from:
T T
K e( j) = Γ ( j) k e( j) Γ ( j) and K (gj) = Γ ( j) k (gj) Γ ( j)
With all DOF in global coordinates the global stiffness matrices may be
assembled as an appropriate summation of the strip stiffness matrices, where:
j=1 to n j=1 to n
K e = ∑ K e( j) and K g = ∑ K (gj)
assembly assembly
Stability solution
0.8
P y =40.11kips
0.7 Dist. P crd/P y =0.75
0.6
P cr / P y
0.5
0.4 Flexural
Local P crl/P y =0.42
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10
half-wavelength (in.)
Figure 2 Conventional FSM analysis of an SSMA 600S200-68 structural stud
In the conventional FSM described above the selected shape functions result in
members that are pinned and free-to-warp at their ends. More complicated
boundary conditions are possible, but require the longitudinal deformations of u,
v, w to be defined in terms of a series (or splines) and result in much larger and
more complicated eigenvalue problems (see e.g., Bradford and Azhari 1995).
Further, more exact treatments of the deformations may employ higher order
polynomials for the transverse displacements (e.g., see Rhodes 2002). For a
complete treatment of finite strip derivations, and applications beyond member
stability, see Cheung and Tham (1998). Finite strip solutions that use the shape
functions presented here are the most common in thin-walled stability and will
be termed the semi-analytical or conventional FSM. CUFSM (Schafer 2006)
provides a solution in this form as does CFS (CFS 2006) and THIN-WALL
(Papangelis and Hancock 1995, 2006).
SE bending SE membrane
Figure 3 Strain energy related to membrane and bending deformations for the buckling modes
To provide a means of rigorous classification mechanical definitions have been
selected. Given the lack of alternative proposals, the criteria applied in
generalized beam theory (GBT) are used, (Silvestre and Camotim 2002a,b),
which are found to usually be in good agreement with current engineering
classifications. The separation of G, D, L and other (O) deformation modes are
completed through selective implementation of the following three criteria.
Criterion #1: (a) (γxy)m = 0, i.e. there is no in-plane shear, (b) (εx)m = 0, i.e. there
is no in-plane transverse strain, and (c) v is linear in x within a flat part (i.e.
between any two fold locations). Criterion #2: (a) v ≠ 0, i.e. the warping
displacement is not constantly equal to zero along the whole cross-section, and
(b) the cross-section is in transverse equilibrium. Criterion #3: κxx = 0, i.e. there
is no transverse flexure.
u1 1 0 0
v 0 u
1 = 1 0
v1 or duv = Rduv-r
u 2 1 0 0
v 2
v 2 0 0 1
where R is the constraint matrix, which is a representation of the introduced
strain constraints. For more general strain-displacement constraints (i.e., the
other criteria), and more general cross-sections, the derivations are more
complicated, but finally the associated constraint matrices (R) can be defined, as
shown in Ádány and Schafer (2006a,b) for G and D modes and Ádány (2004)
for L and O modes, and thus apply for all the criterion summarized in Table 1.
Since a different R matrix may be constructed for each of the modal classes: G,
D, L, and O, taken together they span the entire original nodal FSM basis and
represent a transformation of the solution from the original nodal basis to a basis
where G, D, L, and O deformation fields are segregated, so, for any vector of
nodal displacements in global coordinates, D:
D = [RG RD RL RO]Dr = RDr
represents the transformation. The partitions of the R constraint matrices are the
deformation fields associated with the G, D, L, and O spaces that meet the
criterion of Table 1, while columns of R corresponds to individual deformation
modes For the SSMA 600S200-068, R for the G, D, and L spaces are provided
graphically in Figure 5. For example, the first four deformations in Figure 5a
and b provide the warping displacements and transverse displacements for the G
modes, i.e.
RG = [G1 G2 G3 G4]
G1/O1 G2 G3 G4 D1 D2
(a) warping displacements of RG and RD
G1/O1 G2 G3 G4 D1 D2
(b) transverse displacements of RG and RD
L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8
L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8
(d) transverse displacements of first 8 RLu modes when transformed to unit-member axial modes
Figure 5 Deformation modes spanning G, D, L for SSMA600S200-068 based on cFSM
Modal decomposition
The G, D, and L modes are decomposed from the general solution using the
procedure described above and the calculated critical forces are plotted against a
conventional FSM solution for the 600S200-068 section in Figure 6. The L and
mode solution shows excellent agreement with the conventional FSM minima.
The D mode solution suggests a somewhat stiffer response than the conventional
FSM. For distortional buckling, bending in the web is greater in a conventional
FSM than in the decomposed cFSM solution (this is shown in the insets to
Figure 6, but also may readily be seen in strain energy plots). The relative
difference between the conventional FSM minima for D and the cFSM solution
is typically smaller in most lipped channels studied by the authors; but in
general a difference exists. (Note, this implies a difference between GBT
distortional mode solutions and conventional FSM solutions as well). The G
mode curve shows the same tendency as a conventional FSM solution, for long
members, however the critical loads are somewhat higher. The difference is due
to the fact that in-plane transverse deformations are fully restricted in G modes,
as discussed in Ádány and Schafer (2006b).
1.5
FSM
L
D
G
600S200-068
Pcr/P y
D by FSM D by
0.5 minima cFSM
0
0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10
half-wavelength (in.)
Modal identification
1
Pcr /Py
0.5
0
0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10
100
50 L G
D
vector norm
0
0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10
100
G O
50 L
D
weighted strain energy
0
0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10
half-wavelength (in.)
Figure 7 Modal identification results for SSMA 600S200-068
The vector norm is perhaps the simplest possible participation scheme, and it is
most similar to that used by GBT; however it lacks a physical basis, is
dependent on the discretization of the member, is dependent on the system of
units the problem is solved in, and generally discounts the impact of rotations as
translations are typically several orders of magnitude larger. The weighted strain
energy norm provides a physically motivated normalization and reasonable
identification results. The O mode contribution observed in Figure 7 is
consistent with the findings in Schafer and Ádány (2006) which demonstrates
that conventional FSM includes an O mode contribution in global buckling.
Discussion
Conclusion
The conventional finite strip method combined with the constrained finite strip
method provide a powerful tool for exploring cross-section stability in cold-
formed steel members. In the conventional finite strip method elastic and
geometric stiffness matrices are formed from a summation of cross-section strips
and employed in an eigenvalue stability analysis. The stiffness matrices are
explicitly derived in this paper and can readily be used in engineering software.
The provided solution is identical to that employed in the open source stability
analysis program: CUFSM. The constrained finite strip method is described and
examples of its application provided. The strength of this new extension to finite
strip solutions is the ability to decompose and identify conventional finite strip
solutions as related to buckling classes of interest: global, distortional, or local
buckling. The examples provided here show the potential use of the constrained
finite strip method, and the algorithms discussed are implemented in CUFSM.
Acknowledgments
The presented research has been performed with the financial support of the
Korányi Imre Scholarship of the Thomas Cholnoky Foundation, the OTKA
K62970 of the Hungarian Scientific Research Fund, the American Iron and Steel
Institute, and CMS-0448707 of the United States National Science Foundation.
References
Ádány, S., Schafer, B.W. (2004). “Buckling mode classification of members with open
thin-walled cross-sections.” Fourth Int’l Conf. on Coupled Instabilities in Metal
Structures, Rome, Italy, 27-29 Sept., 2004
Ádány, S., Schafer, B.W. (2006a). “Buckling mode decomposition of single-branched
open cross-section members via finite strip method: derivation.” Elsevier, Thin-
walled Structures, (In Press)
Ádány, S., Schafer, B.W. (2006b). “Buckling mode decomposition of single-branched
open cross-section members via finite strip method: application and examples.”
Elsevier, Thin-walled Structures, (In Press)
Ádány, S., Slivestre, N., Schafer, B., Camotim, D. (2006). “Buckling analysis of
unbranched thin-walled members: generalized beam theory and constrained finite
strip method.” III European Conference on Computational Mechanics, Solids,
Structures and Coupled Problems in Engineering, C.A. Mota Soares et.al. (eds.),
Lisbon, Portugal, 5–8 June 2006
Bradford, M.A., Azhari, M. (1995). "Buckling of plates with different end conditions
using the finite strip method." Computers and Structures, 56 (1) 75-83.
CFS (2006). CFS Version 5.0, RSG Software, www.rsgsoftware.com, visited on April
25, 2006.
Cheung, Y.K., Tham, L.G. (1998). The Finite Strip Method. CRC Press.
NAS (2004). 2004 Supplement to the North American Specification for the Design of
Cold-Formed Steel Structures. American Iron and Steel Institute, Washington, DC.
Papangelis, J.P., Hancock, G.J. (1995). “Computer analysis of thin-walled structural
members.” Computers & Structures, Pergamon, 56(1)157-176.
Papangelis, J.P., Hancock, G.J. (2005). Thin-Wall: Cross-Section Analysis and Finite
Strip Analysis of Thin-Walled Structures, Thin-Wall v2.1, Centre for Advanced
Structural Engineering, University of Sydney,
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/case/thinwall visited on 15 March 2005.
Rhodes, J. (2002). “Post-buckling analysis of light gauge members using finite strips.”
Sixteenth International Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Steel Structures.
Orlando, FL USA, October 7-18, 2002.
Schafer, B.W., Ádány, S. (2005). “Understanding and classifying local, distortional and
global buckling in open thin-walled members.” Tech. Session and Mtg., Structural
Stability Research Council. Montreal, Canada.
Schafer, B.W., Ádány, S. (2006). “Modal decomposition for thin-walled member stability
using the finite strip method.” SMCD 2006, May 14-17, 2006, University of
Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Silvestre, N., Camotim, D. (2002a). “First-order generalised beam theory for arbitrary
orthotropic materials.” Thin-Walled Structures, Elsevier, 40 (9) 755-789.
Silvestre, N., Camotim, D. (2002b). “Second-order generalised beam theory for arbitrary
orthotropic materials.” Thin-Walled Structures, Elsevier, 40 (9) 791-820.